Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses what data comes back for each mode (age/curve progress/market cap vs volume/liquidity/buys-sells/change), but says nothing about auth, rate limits, freshness, or result size limits beyond the schema's cap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence front-loads the core action and the mode semantics, then closes with the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place with zero filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must convey return values, and it does so per mode. For a read-only list tool this is largely complete, though pagination/limit behavior and data freshness are left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining what each enum value ('new' vs 'trending') actually returns, making the mode choice decidable. It adds no further detail on 'limit' beyond the schema's default of 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Robinhood Chain tokens) with an explicit enumeration of the two list modes and what each returns. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling scan_token by describing the find-then-inspect workflow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use it ('Use it to find tokens') and names the follow-up alternative ('then scan_token to read one in depth'). No exclusion conditions are given for when NOT to use it, but the routing guidance is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.